Deliberative session will be Aug. 11, 2008, @ 6:30pm and the vote will be held on Sept. 9, 2008, @ 7am- 8pm.
First question that comes to mind is why the board didnt schedule this so that the vote could coincide with the November election? That would have saved the Town at least $3,500.00. Remember they were complaining about the cost of a special town meeting?
Also Remember that if the FIRST warrant articles hadn't been sabotaged by the prior board, then this meeting would not have been necessary.
Second question is why not allow 30 days from your decision on the date, to the actual deliberative session?
Third question, will the board take a page out of Newton's book, and actually stand up and defend our water? Their track record in this regard is abyssmal.
Call your board and let them know what your feeling are on this issue.
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I notice that the poll is beginning to show more "it would be OK" responses.
Is the Atkinson PD, trying to skew the results?
I'm sure the wrong-do-r's are trying to vote as well.
We've gotten a little off topic but I'd like to comment on the poll.
In the private sector the disciplinary process is not quite so black and white.
The process may vary somewhat but typically the first thing that is done when a problem is detected, the manager starts keeping copious notes. When it has gotten bad enough the employee is first given a verbal warning. If the problem continues, they are given a written warning. Still not resolved, fired. Suspensions have never been an option in my experience.
There are of course exceptions, such as conduct so egregious as to demand immediate action (an immediate escort to the door). Examples I've seen in my career; a male employee exposing himself to a female employee, a employee treating a key customer extremely poorly, an executive that tried to claim a escort service on his expense report.
The chief is a unique case. His misdeeds have been numerous and well documented, yet no disciplinary we know off. In this particular case, since he is the boss, the responsibility is his.
If this were the private sector, a record of his misconduct would have been kept, and in case, this would likely be a firing offense.
Here's the kicker;
The Town has a black and white written discipline procedure for ALL town employees.
It is a 4 step process;
verbal warning
written warning
suspension
termination
and the steps may be accelerated depending upon the severity of the offense.
but the selectmen refuse to follow that policy, in regards to the chief.
Make of it what you will.
Don't assume sabotage of the poll just because you're not particularly fond of some of the responses. Personally, I think everyone who is voting that the involved parties would be fired, are intentionally overstating what would happen at their place of employment. Phony sick days occurr in every line of work on an almost daily basis. It is hardly worthy of discipline let alone termination, especially considering the potential ramifications of an unlawful termination labor dispute. There are plenty of worthwhile issues that you can attack the Chief/PD over, and I would probably join your cause, I just don't think this is one of them.
Ad hominem.
I'm still not sure how someone could have hacked your site, which was on a public server with thousands of others.
Your password must have been too easy.
September 9 is the date of the state primary for US senator, governor, state senator, state rep, etc. So I would think there would be some saving as the polls will be open anyway on that day.
Former Atk. Res.,
You are right, phony sick days occur everywhere. The difference is that they are usually not known by the company as phony, they are not usually so the employee can work somewhere else, in effect receiving two paychecks for the same hours, and they are NEVER knowingly approved by the Dept. Manager,
In companies I have worked for, the employee would have merely been written up for lying on his time sheet, but the supervisor who signed it knowing that the employee was out working somewhaere else would have been fired, because the company could no longer trust him to be honest, and loyal to the company.
This is definitely not a case of bogus sick days. What it is, is a clear violation of town policy regarding sick leave and military pay reimbursement.
The town and most private companies have a policy for military leave. The rule is usually that the company will make up the difference between their normal salary and their military pay. In my place of employment any attempt to circumvent this policy by a manager would result in disciplinary action for the manager.
BTW - What happened to the letter box? Has the blog security been deemed strong enough to not require it anymore. I thought it was a nice touch.
BTW, Most companies military pay compensation only deals with military deployment, not weekend guard duty, or summer camp.
Dont forget chief consentino said he has been doing this for the last 6YEARS!!! And he knew it was wrong!
Post a Comment